IT IS often thought that belief in
the unity of Scripture carries with it the inevitable conclusion that everything
in it is on the same level of spiritual value, that the teaching and authority
(say) of Ecclesiastes are not essentially lower than those of (say) Ephesians.
But this idea of uniform spiritual value is assuredly not a logical consequence
of a belief in the unity of the Bible. On the contrary, just as in the human
body, some members are more important than others, and yet each is necessary
in its place and for its purpose, so in the Bible, some parts are of less,
and others are of greater spiritual importance and value. The two truths
of the Unity and Progressiveness of Scripture must, therefore, be held together,
and the latter must be allowed to explain and vindicate the
former.

1. The Principle  The Bible consists
of two parts, Old Testament and New Testament, and in these it is possible
to see the

Page 76

general progress of truth. The former indicates Law, and the latter
Grace. The one deals for the most part with rules suited to moral childhood,
the other, with principles applicable to moral maturity.

But within these two main divisions there are still
further and fuller instances of progress. God has revealed his will to man
in many parts and in many ways (Heb. 1:1), and it is usual to speak of these
as dispensations, meaning particular methods of the divine attitude and action.
While in general we speak of the Jewish and Christian dispensations, we can
and must go into further detail, and notice both in the Old Testament and
in the New, the different yet connected stages of God's revelation to man.
Some students suggest seven of these dispensations: the Edenic; the Antediluvian;
the Patriarchal; the Mosaic; the Christian; the Millennial and the Eternal.
Even these are capable of fuller division, for the Mosaic dispensation can
be distinguished as the Theocracy (the time from Egypt to Samuel); the Monarchy
(from Saul to the Captivity); and the Return (from the restoration to Malachi).
The Christian dispensation can be

Page 77

similarly divided into the times before and after
Pentecost.

Now in these various divisions it is often possible
to distinguish God's manifestation of himself and of his truth at different
stages. There was a gradually increasing expression of the divine character
and will at successive periods, just as the people were considered ready
to receive it. This means that while the revelation at every stage of
dispensation was perfect for its own time, it was not necessarily suited
for a following stage.

Now, however we may divide the periods, it is clear
that a distinction of this kind has to be drawn. Thus, when Christ said,
"I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now" (John
16:12). He was indicating, what I am now emphasizing, that truth was progressive
and not all delivered at once. For, as the Lord went on to say, "howbeit
when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all
truth."

Other proofs of the same gradual unfolding of the
complete revelation of God for man, can be seen in these two instances. In
the Sermon on the Mount, Christ first declared the Old Testament truth, and
then supplemented and deepened it by adding,

Page 78

"but I say unto you" (Matthew 5:17-48). And it is clear from Mark
16:17-20, when five miraculous signs are said to "follow them that believe,"
that the reference cannot be to the present period of the Church (for these
signs do not "follow them that believe"), but to that transitional period
comprised in the thirty years of the Book of the Acts, during which time
the Gospel was being offered to the Jews, and when we have the record of
four of the five "signs" plainly stated as having "followed them that
believe."

But in all this progressiveness of revelation, it
is necessary and important to remember that it did not involved any repudiation
of what had gone before. Like the repealing of a law which is in force up
to the time of the repeal, the teaching for each stage was valid and obligatory
until supplemented and thereby supplanted by fresh and fuller instruction.
But repeal of a law never means repudiation, only a "disannulling" because
of a completer provision (Heb. 7:18).

A striking proof of this has been shown in the fact
that there are traces of Scripture of later portions carrying an endorsement
of previous stages. Joshua confirms the law of Moses (Joshua 1:8). The first
Psalm emphasizes

Page 79

the value of the law (v. 2). Acts refers back to the third Gospel.
The Old Testament is frequently endorsed in the New. Throughout the Old Testament
there are, as we have already seen, traces of the gradual growth by accretion
of the various books, until the Canon was complete. All this attestation
of one part of Scripture by another is a proof at once of its unity and its
progressiveness. Then, at length we have the meridian of truth in the New
Testament revelation.

2. The Principle Illustrated  Out of
many examples of this progressiveness of revelation, two will be adduced.
The first is the doctrine of God. In the Old Testament emphasis is rightly
placed on the unity of the Godhead as against the "gods many" of heathenism.
But in the New Testament there is the additional revelation of the Trinity,
which is not only not contradictory of the Unity, but is based on it and
developed out of it. Every one knows that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
never had the slightest connection with polytheism, but grew out of Jewish
monotheism. It is significant that with all the Jewish objections to Christianity
in Paul's time, no trace can be found of any opposition to his doctrine of
a distinction between the Deity of the Father and the Deity of the Son, which
was the germ of the fully-developed doctrine of the Trinity.

The explanation of this was that the Jewish believers,
having been led by experience into an acceptance of Christ as a divine Redeemer
(and thereby to a distinction in the Deity) found in their Old Testament
anticipatory hints of the Trinity. They realized that the unity of the Godhead
was compound not simple, as the Hebrew words for "one" clearly indicate (Deut.
6:4; Exod. 26:6-11; Ezek. 37:16-19).

Another illustration of the progressiveness of revelation
is seen in the difference between the morality of the Old and New Testaments.
This doctrine of the progress of revelation helps us to distinguish between
God's temporary and permissive will and his absolute and inflexible standard.
The former is seen in the Old Testament and the latter in the New Testament,
and as we study the first-named we can see in it clear indications of its
temporary character. Thus, while permitting slavery, restrictions were imposed,
and cruelty was prohibited (Exodus 21:16-27). Many of the Old Testament
difficulties can be solved, or at least relieved by the
consideration

Page 81

of this purely temporary and merely permissive character of the
morality. Christ referred to this when he distinguished between the primal
divine command about marriage, and the Mosaic toleration of divorce (Matthew
19:8).

This principle of progress in God's revelation is
of great practical service in meeting certain current objections to the Old
Testament. There are those who reject it because of its alleged cruelties,
such as the slaughter of the Canaanites, or because of certain manifestations
in individual life and practice not consonant with the New Testament principles.
Now, while we are not to be guided today by many of the examples of the Old
Testament, it is equally true that in so far as what they said and did was
due to a revelation of God, that revelation was perfect for that time, whatever
additional truth came afterward for newer needs. We say in so far as what
they said and did was of God, because not even in the Old Testament are we
to understand that God necessarily approved of all that his servants said
and did, even when they thought they were doing him service. But if there
were the place to do it, the instance of the Canaanites, already referred
to,

Page 82

could be justified without much difficulty, in the light of the
divine judgment on the awful depths of sin to which they had descended (Gen.
15:16).

There is another point that is too apt to be overlooked,
namely that side by side with the gradual development of God's revelation
there was an equally gradual deterioration of Israel, so that they in their
degeneration failed to realize and respond to the ever-enlarging disclosure
of God. And so it has been well pointed out that "there are no set-backs
in the revelation made to Israel, but there are many set-backs in the religious
history of Israel." It is the failure to recognize this distinction between
the divine and the human that has caused people to regard Old Testament morality
as low and unworthy of God, when all the time the explanation has been in
the failure of the people to accept the growing truth of God. This is how
the distinction has been put:

"In regard to the Old Testament I suggest two words
of guiding principle: 'The Law of the Lord is perfect' (that is, its quality).
'The Law made nothing perfect' (that is, its achievement  in its office
as a preparatory discipline to 'school' souls for Christ). These

Page 83

two statements can be written across the sacred Record. A perfect
revelation  imperfect faith. Perfect ethical requirement  imperfect
obedience."

And so, God revealed himself, not only at "sundry
times" but also in "divers manners," to the fathers. He taught men as they
were able to bear it. He led them step by step from the dawn of revelation
up to the fulness and splendor of his manifestation "in these last days in
his Son" (Heb. 1:2). A knowledge of this principle of progress in God's
revelation of himself will enable us to avoid a twofold error: it will prevent
us, on the one hand, from undervaluing the Old Testament by reason of our
fuller light from the New Testament; on the other hand, it will prevent us
from using the Old Testament in any of its stages without guidance from the
complete revelation in Christ. We shall thereby be enabled to obtain the
correct spiritual perspective from which to study the Old Testament, and
to derive from it the wealth of spiritual instruction it was intended to
convey to all ages (Romans 15:4).

We have thus to distinguish carefully between what
may be called temporary teaching and permanent truth in the
Old Testament 

Page 84

that is, between those elements of God's revelation intended solely
for the immediate need, and those which are of eternal validity. To put it
in yet another way, we have to remember the difference between what is written
to us and for us. All Scripture was written for our learning,
but not all was written to us directly. Much of it was not addressed to
Christians but to Jews, and was primarily and often exclusive for them, and
is only for us today by way of application. This distinction will solve many
a difficulty and the progress of doctrine is one of the master-keys of the
Bible.